studiot

Hello Anilkumar, Are you taking your cue from Pilgrim's Progress? The style is strangely reminiscent. I have already answered Swansont's misreading of my last post. I was trying (apparantly not very successfully) to refer to those who start threads (inquirers) with mischief aforethought. Again your long post contained much of worth, with measured and polite responses to the knee jerk reactions of others. Keep at it.

inow +1 (I never thought I'd do that with your attitude but credit where it's due and all that). Otahhh What does this stand for by the way? On Target Academics? In my opinion you should not concentrate exclusively on Physics. At your stage developing Thinking is very very imporant. If you learn only to look at things from one aspect you become blinkered but if you can take a wider view you will see things from new and different perspectives and maybe make great discoveries as a result. So I recommend activities that develop (logical) thinking. Play logical games such a s chess. Do puzzles and brainteasers. Try to answer practical questions eg look around in the real world you know how much a bag of flour or potatoes weighs. Look at a truck load and try to estimate how much it weighs. What sort of parameters are important? Is the shape or size of the potato important? What arrangement of tennis balls allows you to pack the most balls into a box? If there are N players in a knockout tennis tournament, how many matches will have to be played to decide a winner? Physics deals with the world around us so get the feel and intuition of this world. One point, when I was your age, the education syllabus in science (including maths and physics) expected the candidates to be able to display the ability to provide a logical chain of reasoning. This is no longer the case, one of the worst offenders being multiple choice questions which, by definition contain the 'right' answer. For example a geometry question, in my day, might have shown a picture of a complicated figure giving angles at one end and asking for angles at the other. This means the the required answer could not be obtained directly, but required the determination od an intermediate result. Today all I see is a simple triangle showing two angles and asking if the third is (1), (2) or (3) So the required answer is directly available. The skill of being able to recognise that a sequence of determinations ( measurements or calculation) is necessary to achieve a desired result and to organise those determinations is vital to good science. If you like chess, doing chess problems develops this skill, and allows you to explore 'what if' ideas and is fun to boot. go well

Newton's laws are rarely used in chemistry and you need chemistry to understand rusting. However you are right that on a microscopic scale if a molecule moves it does so under the action of a force, subject to Newton's laws. It is really only sub atomic particles that move fast enough to require relativistic considerations.

Maxwell's equations in freshman high school?

Why do you think any of Newton's laws of mechanics have anything to do with rusting? Each our scientific laws are model of only some aspect of reality. It is important to apply the correct model to the part of reality of interest.

As I understand the english language "inquirers" means someone who is asking a question, not answering one.

Whilst on re-reading my first sentence I would agree that my meaning was not clear. However I really can't see that it can in any way lead to your interpretation.

Hello, Anilkumar, that was a long post ! phew ! and it contained much of worth. However there are those inquirers whose posts are not motivated by pure science as you see it. Some post to create mischief. go well

Following this logic the (near penniless) nomads of kazakstahn etc owe the chinese a huge debt since they conquered, overthrew and exploited the various dynasties there, as they did spreading west into europe. But then the norsemen clearly owe such a debt to the english, for much the same reasons Perhaps the descendents of the Incas should compensate those of the Mayan civilization? How about Homo Sapiens compensating Homo Neanderthalis? Where do you draw the line?

Well you haven't shown any working at all, even a diagram would have been a start. A diagram would at least confirm what you have said in words. Here is a hint. Taking your words literally If h is the height then do you have an equation connecting h and I? Draw a triangle showing r, x, h You should now be able to substitute into the equation you posted for sinx and r to obtain an equation between I and h. Now over to you.

No it's not novice level, it's something you can grow with and develop with. However you will have no trouble understanding the physical explanations and situations that are used to explain the maths. In other words Levi sys "here is a physical situation. Pull this, twist that and you can see what happens. Oh and by the way the maths looks like this." Some useful maths books Mathematical Models Cundy and Rollet - Tarquin Books A veritable compendium for those who want to make maths easy by making physical models. Has a fascinating list of references eg the cube made interesting, soap bubbles, growth and form, and my favourite the cube made interesting. ************ The penguin dictionary of curious and interesting geometry David Wells ********* The fractal geometry of nature Mandelbrot Beautiful book be inspired ********************* Geometry by transformations maxwell cambridge university press elementary book make things very simple ************************** From calculus to chaos an intorduction to dynamics david acheson intermediate but great introduction to intermediate level has such gems as the physcis and maths of indian fakirs and the indian rope trick *************************** Finally Mathematics recovered for the natural and medical sciences dennnis rosen An informal breeze through all the subjects you mention or need. This one would help you understand agebra, calculus, geometry etc without the need to become and expert Try asking for these in your library to look through. Many are also available from the like of Abe second hand, quite cheaply.

You should read The Mathematical Mechanic subtitle Using Physical Reasoning to Solve (mathematical) Problems by Mark Levi

When considering what college courses to take be aware that you don't need to specialise that far. Depending upon how good you are and where you study there are various joint subject schemes. If you are good enough to go to Cambridge there is the Natural Sciences tripos as opposed to the Physical Sciences tripos (which would not be for you) American universities have a major and minor subject scheme.

Anilkumar, thanks for the elequent support. I couldn't be bothered to argue further.

In which case I would like to ignite you to work harder by properly reading posts so that you do not attribute comments to the wrong poster.

Yes, thank you, add#3 to the list.

It is not necessary to ridicule new ideas in order to be skeptical. They should be examined and discussed in a rational and science-like manner. Yes the examples were just 'off the top of my head' and unfortunately are far from unique. Nor is the effect confined to science, again unfortunately. Arguably the most brilliant and certainly the most successful warplane ever nearly didn't get off the drawing board, let alone the ground. Again it was only the deep pockets and persistent self confidence of the designer that it made it into the sky.

Let us assume that ajb (whom I respect immensely) john cuthber and ecoli are scientists. (And I am the devil's advocate) Case proved M'lud. You have all reacted exactly in the way deplored by the OP. Let us look through my list. Gallileo was threatened with torture by his own establishment. Parsons was blackballed from the Admiralty, but was rich enough to force his view on recalcitrant admirals. Noether was grudgingly allowed to be an unpaid 'assistant' under an assumed name. Wegner was ridiculed for half a century- I'm not sure he lived to see his ideas into fuition. Whittle was originally nearly discharged from the navy in the mid 20s for his jet engine which was revived in the late 40s Flemming nearly threw out the historic samples Mandelbrot - well where are the accolades he deserves for founding chaos theory? As to the question of genuinely new discoveries. 1) Penecillin is a classic modern example 2) Magnetic reversals in the mid ocean ridge strata are another 3) The belousov - zhabotinski reaction is another 4) Chaotic action in pulmonary rhythms is another 5 Of course 'radio activity' was one in its day. go well

" is " was the word you missed out. And it certainly is nonsense. Perhaps when you are in the mood for polite and rational discussion we can engage in one. go well

And what if there is no existing theory ie the theory is completely new? There is a long history of innovators being ridiculed or ignored, Gallileo Parsons Noether Wegner Whittle Flemming Mandelbrot

What I said was the concepts of motion and energy are indeterminate and meaningless in certain theoretical universes. That does not mean they do not apply to our universe. In our universe it is unknown whether there are any points or particles at zero energy or zero motion. If our universe is infinite then it a zero of either is impossible. If our universe is finite than it is conceivable that somewhere every effect could 'cancel out' instantaneously. But since our universe is in constant motion that event would only occur instantaneously.

Well I didn't agree with you either in post #10 or here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68393-what-is-motion/page__p__697494__fromsearch__1#entry697494

Aye Aye Cap'n. I see the watch topic button and it takes me to an options list. I must have used it once and got it right because I see I have one 'watched topic' However this is the first time I have since located this list. Further I see no button to find my watched topics when I log on and it is not in the drop down list under my singin at the top right or in settings. Yes if I could only use this facility... Edit I also don't see on the settings how to add topics posted in automatically, as happens in other forums. sigh.

I have not seen this thread before and this reply is addressed particularly towards the good captain. I am pretty new here so perhaps you would like to consider my experiences as help towards addressing the membership issues you raise. My first degree was applied maths followed by further postgraduate engineering qualifications and a lifetime's experience of applying my maths. My intention was partly to chew the cud with like minded souls, but mainly to pass some on experience and help others, certainly I have a few threads of this nature. However looking back over threads I have entered I see that more often than not they have ended up in the speculations arena. I have only asked for help with the system once and received a bloody nose, from your establishment (who I have praised and defended eslewhere) for asking. Needless to say I did not pursue that thread further. I am still struggling with some aspects of operating ScienceForums. So a couple of weeks ago I started a thread which received little interest. I lost contact with that thread, but a recent personal message has caused me to hunt it out. Whereupon I discovered there were some replies I missed. The point of this is that in all other forums I have been on there is a simple and obvious way to organise and track threads I am following so that I know when there is an addition (I don't mean email). If such a facility exists at SF I have not uncovered it and I consider this a serious inconvenience. go well